Thursday, October 19, 2017

George W. Bush thought we were deplorable long before Hillary did. In 2006 Pres. Bush called us racist for not wanting to turn over inspection of US ports to UAE despite that UAE banks have long funded Islamic terror. He even said failure to approve Dubai ports deal would increase terrorism-NY Times, March 10, 2006...(Needless to say, Bush lost both the House and Senate in Nov. 2006)..."Is This the George W. Bush Version of Hillary’s Deplorables?" Rush Limbaugh, 10/19/17

The
company, DP World, said that at the direction of Dubai's ruler it would
"transfer" to a still-unnamed American company the leases to manage
some of the busiest terminals in the United States, including some in
New York, Newark, Baltimore and Miami.

Under
questioning, the company declined to say whether it planned to sell the
American operations or had some other transaction in mind.

Senator
John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, announced the change on the
Senate floor two hours before the Senate had been scheduled to vote on a
motion that could have paved the way for a Democratic proposal to
scuttle the deal....

A delegation of Republican
Congressional leaders told Mr. Bush on Thursday morning that his threat
to veto Congressional action against transferring control of the
terminals would not stop Congress from blocking the deal.

Some
experts suggested that DP World's quick surrender might take pressure
off the administration, Congress and nations around the world to solve
that problem.

DP
World announced its decision after the White House appeared to signal
that Mr. Bush wanted a face-saving way out of the shift by declining to
repeat his veto threat.

The
company said the decision had been made by the prime minister of the
United Arab Emirates, who is also the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed
bin Rashid al Maktoum....

In
Dubai, a senior political official with intimate knowledge of the
deliberations, said: "A political decision was taken to ask DP World to
try and defuse the situation. We have to help our friends."

The
official sought anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for
the record. He was referring to Mr. Bush, who backed the initial deal,
and several Republican senators who did as well.

The
company's decision drew sighs of relief from officials in New York and
other cities where the imminent transfer had stirred cries of alarm. But
the announcement left those officials wondering which American
companies might want to buy the American terminal operations. The
company that DP World outbid to buy the current operator, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, a British company, for $6.8 billion, is
Singaporean.

"If
it's a U.S. company, it should alleviate some of the concerns about
security which have been talked about over the last few weeks," Charles
A. Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, said. "I don't know how successful they'll be."

The Port Authority owns terminals in the New York metropolitan region.

Private
equity firms, including the Blackstone Group in New York and KKR, have
been named as potential buyers of the American terminal operations,
which are a small and not particularly lucrative slice of the $6.85
billion Dubaian purchase.

The
collapse of the deal is the second time in less than a year in which a
foreign acquisition raised protests about the economic security of the
United States. Cnooc, a Chinese government-owned oil company, dropped a
bid to buy Unocal in July, after it was clear that opposition would run
high. Chevron took over the company instead, for $18 billion.

Those
objections were washed away in a tidal wave of opposition in which
Republicans and Democrats competed to position themselves as greater
protectors of American security.

Democrats
like Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York warned that the port
operations could be "infiltrated" by terrorists exploiting the ownership
in Dubai, an emirate known for its open trade. Dubai had been the
transfer point starting in the late 90's for nuclear components shipped
by the largest illicit nuclear technology network in the world.

The
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan
Hunter, Republican of California, introduced a bill that would require
American ports and other strategic assets to be returned to American
hands.

"Our
longer-term goal is to identify long-range foreign investment in our
critical infrastructure, reform the process for approving foreign
investment in the United States and ensure 100 percent cargo
inspection," Mr. Hunter said on Thursday.

By
Thursday morning, Mr. Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan, appeared
to signal that the White House was backing away from its position, by
refusing to repeat the veto threat.

At
the time, Mr. Bush was meeting with the Senate majority leader, Bill
Frist, and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, both of whom had vocally split
with Mr. Bush on the deal.

"It
was a tactical discussion by that point," a participant said....

Another
participant, the House majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner,
Republican of Ohio, was unapologetic about the uprising.

"House
Republicans," Mr. Boehner said, "were obligated to take action to
respond to the concerns Americans have expressed about the proposed
deal."

It
was unclear who a buyer might be for the assets now on the block.
Experts said ports businesses threw off a predictable amount of cash, a
quality often attractive to private equity buyers.

Because DP World is desperate to sell, some experts said, the terminal leases could be dumped at a bargain price....

Three private equity firms named as potential suitors, Blackstone, KKR and the Texas Pacific Group, had no comment.

DP
World issued its decision hours after its side won a round in a legal
dispute with the Port Authority. The authority had asked a New Jersey
state court in Newark to allow it to break quickly its 30-year lease on
the Port Newark Container Terminal, half operated by P and O Ports North
America.

The president [George W. Bush]is weak on his right flank, and whoever is smart enough to
take advantage of that is likely to succeed. If the administration had
not left itself open to criticism on issues such as homeland security
and illegal immigration, the Democrats would not have a foothold....In addition to being politically tone deaf,the Bush administrationhas reacted to critics with arrogance and dismissiveness."...

On top of it all, the original report that only six ports were
affected by the deal turned out to be misleading. It is in fact terminal
operations at 21 ports
that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control
over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard. For
some reason, much of the media continues to report the lower figure.

The firestorm over the
ports deal has exposed a rift on the right and a political opportunity
for the left. On the one hand, you have the Bush administration and
loyalists in the Republican Party and conservative media defending the ports deal. On the other, you have Democrats,
Republicans, conservatives and liberals all justifiably concerned about
a Muslim country, ally or not, having control of 21 U.S. ports in a
time of war. According to polls, the majority of Americans fall into the latter category, putting them at odds with the Bush administration.

With this in mind, the
accusations of "hypocrisy" and "demagoguery" against Democratic
opponents are a bit pointless. Whether they're doing it for partisan
reasons or not is immaterial. The president is weak on his right flank,
and whoever is smart enough to take advantage of that is likely to
succeed. If the administration had not left itself open to criticism on
issues such as homeland security and illegal immigration,the Democrats
would not have a foothold.

In response to concerns raised by opponents, the Bush administration has pointed out that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard will continue to control port security. However, the Coast Guard has complained
of intelligence gaps in trying to determine whether Dubai Ports World
might be vulnerable to terrorist operations. While the company itself
may be reputable, what's to stop infiltrators from securing jobs and
smuggling in weapons of mass destruction?

While the pros and the cons of the ports deal have been much debated,
certain facts remain that should give pause. Troubling links between
the United Arab Emirates and Islamic radicalism are among them.

It's been widely reported that along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan,
the United Arab Emirates was one of only three countries to formally
recognize the Taliban. But according to a recent article by journalist Paul Sperry,
the relationship went much further than that. Dubai acted as banker and
travel agent for the repressive regime. This cozy relationship extended
to the Taliban's "guest," al-Qaida leaderOsama bin Laden.
He and the Dubai royal family maintained close ties, with a 1999 visit
to one of his camps in Afghanistan courtesy of an official United Arab
Emirates airplane.

Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," also points to a possible conflict of interest
involving the Council on American Islamic Relations and the United Arab
Emirates. CAIR, which has had five officials convicted of ties to
terrorism, has defended the ports deal and accused critics of
"Islamophobia." But it just so happens that General Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum,
the emir of Dubai and point man for U.S.-based executives of Dubai
Ports World, owns the deed to CAIR's headquarters in Washington. One has
to wonder if that has just a little something to do with CAIR's
endorsement.

Furthermore, the United Arab Emirates is a participant
in the Arab boycott against Israel and refuses to recognize the
country. A certificate of origin has to be checked on all imports, lest
they come from the Jewish state. When asked about the boycott, Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staffer at the Dubai Customs Department,
stressed that "If a product contained even some components that were
made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a
problem." The fact that American companies are prohibited by law from
cooperating with Arab governments in their attempts to boycott Israel
seems to matter little in this case....

Al-Qaida members have bragged about infiltrating the United Arab Emirates' security apparatus, among other agencies. This is the "valuable partner" President Bush insists has been so helpful in the war on terrorism?

Security vs. Business

Just because a country is an ally does not mean that we have to
jeopardize our security. Even supposedly moderate allies in the region,
such as Jordan, are hardly pillars of progressbeneath the surface.
Others, such as Saudi Arabia, are given a free pass because of the
United States' energy dependence. Isn't it time we started expecting
more from our allies than lip service?

Some have suggested that the Bush family has its own conflicts of interest with the ports deal. CNN's Lou Dobbs reported
that United Arab Emirates investors provided funding to an educational
software company owned by Neil Bush, the president's brother. But that's
the least of it. A series of financial entanglements involving the Bush family, the Carlyle Group and Dubai investment
entities owned by the United Arab Emirates are also raising eyebrows.

Now we find that another dubious Dubai deal
is on the table. Dubai International Capital wants to buy London-based
Doncasters Group, which would put it in charge of plants in Georgia and
Connecticut that make components for military aircraft and tank engines.
Having learned a thing or two from the ports debacle, the Bush
administration has launched a national security investigation of the
Dubai-owned company. But much like the ports deal, the investigation is
more a delaying tactic than an impediment.

In response to such concerns,
a bipartisan group of senators has put forward legislation that would
require Congress be given the report from the 45-day review of the
United Arab Emirates ports deal as well as final say on the arrangement.
Additional changes involving oversight of the Committee on Foreign
Investmentsin the United States, the administration panel that approved
the ports deal, and foreign ownership where national security is at
risk are also being proposed.

But the fact that such acquisitions are even being considered points
to thelarger problem of increasing foreign ownership. As it stands,
China, Denmark, Japan, South Korea and Singapore have control
over terminals in 36 American port cities.And now we're going to add
the United Arab Emirates to that list? The strong reaction to the ports
deal speaks to a growing dissatisfaction among Americans at the level of
foreign ownership, outsourcing and illegal immigration in our country.
If that's "protectionist," then so be it.

The president's record on homeland security doesn't exactly inspire
confidence. In addition to the outsourcing of America's ports, Bush has
left the country's southern border largely defenseless, while increasing illegal immigration with guest-worker proposal announcements. The Department of Homeland
Security is one massive pork-barrel spending opportunity, with funds
going mostly to the wrong people in the wrong places. At the same time,
the Bush administration has allowed Saudi oil money to purchase far too
much influence in American society, particularly in its educational institutions.

Transnationalism as Usual

Much like previous administrations, the president is simply making
the world safe for transnational corporations. It's no coincidence that
former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are out pushing the
Dubai deal. Administration after administration has brought America to
the point it's at today, where everything is for sale to the highest
bidder. When President George H.W. Bush introduced the concept of a "new world order," it was a harbinger of things to come.

Concern over this
issue spans the political spectrum, including the anti-globalization
forces on the left and the protectionists on the right. Each faction is
opposed to the outcome, for different reasons. Many of Bush's constituents have awakened to this reality, and the
rumblings of discontent have greatly increased. Adding to a series of
disappointments since Bush's re-election in 2004, the ports deal may
turn out to be the last straw.

Sen. Carl Levin, senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, was incensed that the interagency government committee
dealing with foreign takeovers approved the UAE proposal in 30 days. The
law requires an extra 45 days’ consideration for any deal that could be
a risk to U.S. security....

The emirates had a spotty record on terror, mainly involving its role as
a banking and financial center. About half the $250,000 (¤210,000) the
spent in the United States by the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists came from UAE
banks.Money from Dubai banks also was linked to al-Qaeda attacks in
1998 against U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania
.Sen. Levin, whose state, Michigan, has the second-largest ethnic Arab
population in the United States, referred to such facts Thursday as he
grilled the deputy secretary of the treasury about the procedures by
which Dubai Ports won control of the six ports.

– The Republican leadership in both houses should, of course, be
replaced with fresh faces. They have failed and must be held
accountable. Newt Gingrich, who accomplished much more, had the good
grace to resign for much less.